The Supreme Court has allowed the criminal appeal and directed the release of the appellant, Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain, on default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court set aside the order dated 21st February 2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal M.P. No. 742 of 2024 as well as the orders passed by the Special Judge extending the time for filing the chargesheet, holding that the extensions were granted without producing the appellant before the court, without intimating him of the application, and without providing him any opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the continued detention beyond 90 days illegal.
The appellant was arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 13 of 2023 dated 7th November 2023 registered at Police Station ATS, Ranchi for offences punishable under Sections 124A, 153A, 120B IPC and Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He claims to have been illegally detained on 4th November 2023 and was formally shown arrested on 7th November 2023. He was remanded to judicial custody on 8th November 2023 and the period of remand was extended from time to time. The statutory period of 90 days under Section 167(2) CrPC was to expire on 5th February 2024. On 2nd February 2024, the Investigating Officer moved an application seeking extension of time to complete the investigation, which was allowed by the learned Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi on the same day. The appellant was neither produced before the court physically or through video conferencing nor was he intimated about the application or given any opportunity to oppose the prayer for extension.
The appellant moved an application for default bail on 8th February 2024 after the expiry of 90 days. The Special Judge rejected the application on 20th February 2024 after intimating him of the extension order. Further extensions were granted on subsequent dates. The chargesheet was filed on 2nd May 2024. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant observing that since the chargesheet had been filed within the extended period, the petition for default bail had lost its efficacy.
The Supreme Court, after perusing the order sheets of the trial court, noted that the proceedings dated 2nd February 2024 did not reflect that the appellant was intimated of the application or provided any opportunity of hearing. The Court referred to its decision in Jigar v. State of Gujarat and held that the presence of the accused, either physically or virtually, is mandatory when the court considers an application for extension of time for filing the chargesheet, as the extension affects the indefeasible right to default bail. The accused must be informed that the question of extension is being considered and must be given an opportunity to raise objections, even if limited in scope.
The Supreme Court observed that the order dated 2nd February 2024 and subsequent extension orders were passed mechanically without recording justifiable reasons or application of mind. The orders merely recorded that the investigation was pending and granted extensions without satisfying the twin requirements under the relevant provisions. The Court held that such extensions encroach upon the personal liberty of the accused and must be preceded by due application of mind and recording of reasons. Since the first extension order was illegal and the chargesheet was filed after the expiry of the statutory 90-day period, and the appellant had already applied for default bail before the filing of the chargesheet, his right to default bail stood crystallised and became indefeasible.
The Supreme Court declared the impugned orders bad in law and set them aside. The appellant was directed to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, which may impose suitable conditions to secure his presence during trial. The appeal was allowed accordingly. The judgment was delivered on 30th April 2026 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Case Details:
Title: Md. Ariz Hasnain @ Ariz Hasnain v. State of Jharkhand
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 11860 of 2025)
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 30.04.2026
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 